These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> Huw:
>
> I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words. I can appreciate
> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
> reality. 6" of snow in april is what it is, right? So, if one were to
> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera and
> media time is that a tool or a concept? Methinks a concept is neutral and
> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april. Thanks to Martin I have
> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
> discussing the merger of thinking and speech; being that word meaning
> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
> speaking the word. However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept: Snow
> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts but
> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer. Tool use is an
> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea onto
> another but it is merely a quantity. No? Going back to the example of
> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it that
> qualifies poverty? I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is not
> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
> purposes.
>
> does that make sense?
>
I would need to read this several times over in order to try and align
meanings. Let me try this (hopefully simple) example:
Somewhere out in the world it is feasible that there is a government
institution that has an automated tax calculation system that has, deep in
its rigorous codifications, something like this:
class Poverty : public EconomicStatus
{
...
const Money& calculateTaxToPay( const Money& income ) const
{
return Money(0);
}
...
};
I would agree that this is an artifact. I would also state that this is a
rigorous implementation of (someones) concept (effectively a scientific
concept).
Now. If you shut this part of the system down and get a qualified person to
perform the calculations identically, at a logical level, what are they
using to do this task?
Huw
> eric
>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca